Author
Topic: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 (Read 16616 times)

The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373 atm). At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or vapor by making arbitrarily small changes in pressure and temperature.

Therefore there is a god who is 3 sorts of god. The earlier god, Yahweh kept his son, Jesus, a secret until the New Testament. They all live in heaven. Jesus sits at the right hand of the God of which He is a part, his official title is "Word". The god on Word's left is Yahweh. Yahweh has an "aura" that has a mind of its own and does things (mainly language skills and healing and moving mountains.) The position of this "aura" is subject to Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty but you know when you have it.

The job of them all is "to bear record in heaven," Bearing record in heaven is a bit difficult to understand and it takes three to do it (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." 1 John 5:7-8)

Now, what's complicated about that?

As Holybuckets will say, "Prove to me that that is not true!"

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Does someone more smarter than me actually know if phase-state applies to single molecules?

I can't speak to being smarter, but I do know that phase states do not apply to single molecules. Phase refers to the relative structure of molecules, and if there's one, there's no structure.

That's what I thought. Thanks!

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Wind does in fact have "physical matter". It is, in fact, physical and it can be demonstrated as such. Is it your contention that non-believers in your religion think that we must always see things with our eyes to justify thinking they are real? I don't think one scientist I've ever heard of thinks this way. Your analogies fail because both water and wind can be DEMONSTRATED. The alleged deity "thing" named "Yahweh" that you believe in cannot.

The problem here is that you guys are saying that I cannot use physical things to describe God and yet you are asking a physical question. How can 1+1+1=3.

As for demonstrating God directly where you must see God to understand it - you are right that I cannot. But as you have stated if there are other ways for me demonstrate God that do not have to yield to your senses then that is another story. I could share stories of healing, of people dropping an addictive habit on the spot, of people praising in the midst of persecution, of families being reunited, we could study the interstices of an atom, the birth of a baby, or a million other things that has demonstrated God to certain people. Again either we must ask a physical question and hunt for a physical answer - or we must ask a spiritual question and hunt for a spiritual answer. We cannot mix the two.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, if humanity does not have the capacity to understand this "thing" then why are you believing in it??

Evolution is widely believed in all scientific circles - even though we will understand more about it tomorrow than we do today. In fact because we cannot travel back see the beginning of evolution we will never fully understand evolution - yet most of the world believes in it without question. That is simply what I mean about God. We understand God with our finite brains and therefore cannot fully understand the infinite God. That does not mean we cannot believe in God - just simply we must understand that our understanding of God and who God actually is are on 2 different planes. In other words if you actually could know everything about God then would God really be God? I didn't mean we cannot understand God (I was actually using someone else's language), i was saying we can't fully understand God and therefore must not expect a full explanation about God.

Since you made this analogy, mind explaining when this god is Father, Son and Holy Spirit? And why the need for the three different forms?

Good point. Well first off in Genesis 1:1-2 we read about God creating the world (in Hebrew the word for God here is plural - not in the sense of multiple things, but like in many other languages the actual word is plural. Kind of like the word sheep - it is singular and plural at the same time). In verse 2 we read that the "spirit of God is hovering over the water." Thus in the beginning the Bible describes God and God's Spirit both active in the creation. In John 1:1 we read that the "Word" (meaning Jesus) was with God in the beginning. So the Father, Spirit, and Jesus were all together in the beginning. Here are two quick examples in Scripture where God, Jesus, and Spirit are together in the same place at the same time.

As far why they need different forms. God does need and cannot be in different forms and is not limited to it. God could have just simply wiped out sin, but God chose to use the example of his Son Jesus (in Jewish culture the first born son is literally a part of the Father and is why the son is given the rights to the entire inheritance). The Spirit is God with us. This is not a different form of God - it is literally the way we as humans have come to understand God's daily help as God walks with us. So there are no different forms - they are only different ways we experience (maybe a better word is perceive) God.

The whole point of the water analogy is not to show different forms - but to show that we understand the trinity as God is one and the other parts of the trinity are simply the ways we perceive God.

Again here you are asking for a physical explanation to the trinity and the trinity is not a physical question nor is it a philosophical question - it is a theological question. And theologically the very question is incorrect. It is not 1+1+1=3. It is A+B+C=God. We must understand God as Father, Jesus, and Spirit as all together, for they make up what we as humans have perceived and understand about God.

Evolution is widely believed in all scientific circles - even though we will understand more about it tomorrow than we do today. In fact because we cannot travel back see the beginning of evolution we will never fully understand evolution - yet most of the world believes in it without question. That is simply what I mean about God. We understand God with our finite brains and therefore cannot fully understand the infinite God. That does not mean we cannot believe in God - just simply we must understand that our understanding of God and who God actually is are on 2 different planes. In other words if you actually could know everything about God then would God really be God? I didn't mean we cannot understand God (I was actually using someone else's language), i was saying we can't fully understand God and therefore must not expect a full explanation about God.

The comparison of 'understanding of evolution' and 'understanding of god' isn't particularly valid. You are correct insofar as we do not have a full understanding of the process of evolution. It also certainly possible that we will never be able to get a full understanding. But there is at least some understanding of the process of evolution...I just don't think you can say the same thing for the concept of god(s). For any particular aspect of god that you could claim to understand, I would bet dollars-to-donuts that you could find someone who's understanding of that aspect is contradictory and mutually exclusive to yours. And the both of you would have no referent in objective reality to determine which, if either of you, have anything remotely close to a correct understanding of that aspect.

Furthermore, we have rational justification to believe that our understanding of evolution is changing and getting better as we engage it more. The amount of data that the theory of evolution explains today is greater than the amount of data it explained 10 years ago, which was greater than the amount of data it explained 50 years ago, etc. The same cannot be said for the concept of 'god'. The current 'understanding' of god explains the same amount of data it did 10, 50, 100, 1000, 10000 years ago...which is pretty much 'none'.

I shouldn't really expect or need to fully understand god to be able to make a distinction between that entity's existence vs. non-existence, right? Shouldn't that level of understanding really be the absolute bare minimum required level before you can possibly make a decision to 'believe in it' or not?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Thanks for welcoming me and thanks for the intellectual conversation - I hope I helping to make everyone think more fully through their arguments as you have all been helping me think through mine.

I could share stories of healing, of people dropping an addictive habit on the spot, of people praising in the midst of persecution, of families being reunited, we could study the interstices of an atom, the birth of a baby, or a million other things that has demonstrated God to certain people.

Hmmm...(i) there are probably solid reasons for all of those but, do you think that Hindus could say the same thing? (ii) Why would that indicate there is a god?

Quote

Again either we must ask a physical question and hunt for a physical answer - or we must ask a spiritual question and hunt for a spiritual answer. We cannot mix the two.

What is a spiritual question? As I see it, it would be one on e.g. the subject of human behaviour to which the questioner does not know the answer (although other people might) and assumes (for no good reason) that the answer to the question is divine intervention. Of course, if we assume divine intervention, we have assumed a god who can intervene.

Am I correct?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I just don't think you can say the same thing for the concept of god(s). For any particular aspect of god that you could claim to understand, I would bet dollars-to-donuts that you could find someone who's understanding of that aspect is contradictory and mutually exclusive to yours. And the both of you would have no referent in objective reality to determine which, if either of you, have anything remotely close to a correct understanding of that aspect.

I shouldn't really expect or need to fully understand god to be able to make a distinction between that entity's existence vs. non-existence, right? Shouldn't that level of understanding really be the absolute bare minimum required level before you can possibly make a decision to 'believe in it' or not?

It depends on your definition of understanding. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. There are currently more people in the world who believe in God than don't. In fact, in all of human history more people believe (and many willing to die for those beliefs) than who don't by astonishing numbers (billions more have believed than have not). Including some leaders in science, philosophy, and physiology. So while there are many people who have a contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs than mine - Christians have billions of others who believe (have the same understanding) of the same foundational principals, such as the trinity. So I could argue that we (the combined thought of humanity) have far more understanding about God than we do about evolution or other physical scientific things. Then again we get to the same point - the trinity is a theological and spiritual thing - you are talking about a physical understanding. So while your mutually exclusive reason may preclude the existence of God - I could point to billions of others who have enough understanding to believe in that bare-minimum and more.

In other words your definition of understand is mutually exclusive to you and mine to me. What makes yours more valid than mine? What therefore is the common ground to which we all have in understanding?

What is a spiritual question? As I see it, it would be one on e.g. the subject of human behaviour to which the questioner does not know the answer (although other people might) and assumes (for no good reason) that the answer to the question is divine intervention. Of course, if we assume divine intervention, we have assumed a god who can intervene.

Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct. To ask a question about God - you must have some sort of belief in God (or at least that there could be God). And every example that anyone could give would be accepted or rejected by someone on their presupposition that God exists. That is my point entirely. You are all asking questions about the workings of something that you think doesn't exist. Therefore any analogy, example, or demonstration that I could attempt to give is rejected by on the merits of your believes. This thread asks a spiritual question (the trinity) - and I gave a spiritual answer. You either have to judge it on a spiritual level or not at all. To judge it on a different level presupposes a question and an answer on a different level.

As for demonstrating God directly where you must see God to understand it - you are right that I cannot. But as you have stated if there are other ways for me demonstrate God that do not have to yield to your senses then that is another story. I could share stories of healing, of people dropping an addictive habit on the spot, of people praising in the midst of persecution, of families being reunited, we could study the interstices of an atom, the birth of a baby, or a million other things that has demonstrated God to certain people. Again either we must ask a physical question and hunt for a physical answer - or we must ask a spiritual question and hunt for a spiritual answer. We cannot mix the two.

A few things here: First, if you can't demonstrate this alleged "Yahweh" thing, why are you believing in it and basing your entire life on it?? How is this any different from superstition? Did you ever wonder what religion you would be had you been born in India or Afghanistan? There is ample evidence that your culture strongly influences what religion you are (and what religious "experiences" you claim to have). It seems you are not being critical enough.

Two, the "evidences" you presented here are not evidence of the supernatural. They are based in the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. It's the, "I can't understand it any other way. Therefore it must have been God" argument. And that argument fails b/c it is irrational. Whether we're talking about alleged "healings", "cured" addictions, families being reunited, the atom, or anything else; absolutely NONE of those things point to a "Yahweh" deity, let alone some divine mind behind everything. Nature doesn't tell us how it got here until we investigate. As a side note, this is also known as the God of the Gaps argument. Any place that you don't understand something you say, "There! That must be God." No. It's not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where is your extraordinary evidence for this Yahweh thing? Because so far, this just sounds like credulity.

Evolution is widely believed in all scientific circles - even though we will understand more about it tomorrow than we do today. In fact because we cannot travel back see the beginning of evolution we will never fully understand evolution - yet most of the world believes in it without question. That is simply what I mean about God. We understand God with our finite brains and therefore cannot fully understand the infinite God. That does not mean we cannot believe in God - just simply we must understand that our understanding of God and who God actually is are on 2 different planes. In other words if you actually could know everything about God then would God really be God? I didn't mean we cannot understand God (I was actually using someone else's language), i was saying we can't fully understand God and therefore must not expect a full explanation about God.

This is another false analogy. Evolution is DEMONSTRABLE. Your God is not. In fact, your alleged God cannot even be defined in any coherent way that makes sense. But evolution, on the other hand, can. So, it makes absolutely no sense whatever to draw a comparison between a scientific fact and the thing you believe in which cannot be separated from an imaginary friend.

Do you have any good reason for thinking there are "two planes" (especially some non-physical "spiritual" thing) other than your presumed acceptance of the bible as "the word of God"? All of these arguments are stemming directly from the assumption you made regarding the bible. Can you not see that? But that is really a terrible way to seek truth (i.e. - starting with your conclusion is backwards). What makes you think this "Yahweh" thing is real? In fact, what makes you think there is any such thing as "the spiritual"? Can you even define what that terms means?

Yes, you are correct. To ask a question about God - you must have some sort of belief in God (or at least that there could be God). And every example that anyone could give would be accepted or rejected by someone on their presupposition that God exists. That is my point entirely. You are all asking questions about the workings of something that you think doesn't exist. Therefore any analogy, example, or demonstration that I could attempt to give is rejected by on the merits of your believes. This thread asks a spiritual question (the trinity) - and I gave a spiritual answer. You either have to judge it on a spiritual level or not at all. To judge it on a different level presupposes a question and an answer on a different level.

How do you know it is a spiritual question? This is just another one of your assumptions. You assume it's a spiritual question. Indeed, you have assumed there is such a thing. It really makes no sense to say that in order to talk about a specific subject that such a "thing" must actually exist in reality. Humans talk about Santa Claus with kids all the time. Big deal. But you are mistaken that we "think God doesn't exist". That is an entirely different question. What most of us here think is that your beliefs (i.e. - theism) have not met their burden of proof (and we therefore withhold judgment). That is entirely different from saying we think it's "not true."

But, why are you accepting this belief system on such scanty arguments? Indeed, why even allow yourself to have this pre-commitment to it? Isn't that just absurd? What was your experience when you were growing up? Did your parents raise you to be Christian? Did you have people around you (in your region) that influenced you to believe in the bible (and the doctrine of the trinity, etc)?? How you answer these questions should really shed light on how much confirmation bias you are willing to practice.

A few things here: First, if you can't demonstrate this alleged "Yahweh" thing, why are you believing in it and basing your entire life on it?? How is this any different from superstition? Did you ever wonder what religion you would be had you been born in India or Afghanistan? There is ample evidence that your culture strongly influences what religion you are (and what religious "experiences" you claim to have).

It seems you think I was born in a the western world and raised Christian. These are presuppositions on your part and you may be interested in my heritage as it is not what you think it is (nor is this the place for that discussion).

Quote

This is another false analogy. Evolution is DEMONSTRABLE. Your God is not. In fact, your alleged God cannot even be defined in any coherent way that makes sense. But evolution, on the other hand, can.

You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated. For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man. Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man. If man could change evolution - then evolution would not exist in its current state. Yet, you ask Christians to call on God and for God to give you a demonstration. God is greater than humanity, if humanity could make God do something - then humanity would be equal to God and God would not be God. Therefore we can only use past demonstrations of God as perceived by human experience. Those things passed orally and through writing have come to be known as the Bible.

Quote

All of these arguments are stemming directly from the assumption you made regarding the bible. Can you not see that? But that is really a terrible way to seek truth (i.e. - starting with your conclusion is backwards). What makes you think this "Yahweh" thing is real? In fact, what makes you think there is any such thing as "the spiritual"? Can you even define what that terms means?

I do believe the Bible is real and use I can see that my arguments all stem out of my believe of that Bible. We could argue for years about the authority of the Bible, the archeological, historical, and yes even scientific evidence the Bible shows - but that would be vein as many can't get over the miraculous (or spiritual) aspects of the Bible. Yet, this thread asked a question about the Bible and is in a section called Biblical Contradictions - yet I am not supposed to use the Bible - can you see the falicy in that?

To define spiritual the dictionary says: Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. So when you ask a question about God (the trinity) it is relating the human spirit or soul (because God is a relational being) and therefore cannot be answered by physical evidence.

You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated. For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man. Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man. If man could change evolution - then evolution would not exist in its current state. Yet, you ask Christians to call on God and for God to give you a demonstration. God is greater than humanity, if humanity could make God do something - then humanity would be equal to God and God would not be God. Therefore we can only use past demonstrations of God as perceived by human experience. Those things passed orally and through writing have come to be known as the Bible.

And what's in the Bible can be tested against what we know of reality, to see if it's true.

As it turns out, the parts we can test about what "God" has done, aren't true. The book of Genesis is the prime example of this.

To keep with your analogy, the Bible is like a faked scientific experiment that has since been falsified.

(in Hebrew the word for God here is plural - not in the sense of multiple things, but like in many other languages the actual word is plural. Kind of like the word sheep - it is singular and plural at the same time)

Incorrect. The singular is "el". The plural version is "elohim", meaning "the lords". It is a trace of hebrew/ canaanite polytheism. There are more remnants of that in genesis, where god is referred to in the plural 5 times, if my memory is correct. One case is when Eve and her dim-witted mate eat the fruit of moral knowledge. god exclaims "“See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;". Us, precious? Who is us? Why, the other gods, of course. The elohim.

It is known that el and yhwh - the two distinct gods of the peoples of Israel and judah, respectively - were members of a pantheon of canaanite gods which included Baal, Yam, yhwh's wife, Asherah,[1] and a few other assorted gods who are also mentioned in the OT.

In verse 2 we read that the "spirit of God is hovering over the water." Thus in the beginning the Bible describes God and God's Spirit both active in the creation.

Eh, maybe, maybe not. The word used for "spirit" is "ruwach" and has many meanings.[2] The possible meanings are, breath, wind, wind of heaven, breath of air, air, gas, vain, empty thing, spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation), spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour, courage, temper, anger, impatience, patience, spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented), disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse, prophetic spirit, to name but a few. So for you to conclusively link spirit in this case to the spirit spoken of in the NT, would be to stand on much less solid ground that you represent.

How do you know it is a spiritual question? This is just another one of your assumptions. You assume it's a spiritual question. Indeed, you have assumed there is such a thing. It really makes no sense to say that in order to talk about a specific subject that such a "thing" must actually exist in reality. Humans talk about Santa Claus with kids all the time. Big deal. But you are mistaken that we "think God doesn't exist". That is an entirely different question. What most of us here think is that your beliefs (i.e. - theism) have not met their burden of proof (and we therefore withhold judgment). That is entirely different from saying we think it's "not true."

You are right and I was wrong in deeming everyone atheist when you are in fact agnostic. If you in-fact believe that there might be a God then we can talk about spiritual things. Again, I am new - so sorry for this mix up.

Quote

But, why are you accepting this belief system on such scanty arguments? Indeed, why even allow yourself to have this pre-commitment to it? Isn't that just absurd? What was your experience when you were growing up? Did your parents raise you to be Christian? Did you have people around you (in your region) that influenced you to believe in the bible (and the doctrine of the trinity, etc)?? How you answer these questions should really shed light on how much confirmation bias you are willing to practice.

Well first and foremost I base my beliefs on a lot of arguments (not just scanty ones) and those would talk months and pages to fill up. I was only focusing on the trinity as that was the question.

I came to my belief in Christianity not because I was raised it, or because I was told to. Because Christianity is everywhere in the worlds of course people believed in Christ around me - it would impossible to go somewhere this is not so. I came to my believes by studying the Bible and other writings for years. I have a degree in philosophy and a graduate degree in theology. I have traveled to many countries in the world and have studied many different religions. I came to my belief because I came t the conclusion there that had to be a creative force behind the universe. I looked through ht possible options and found that the Bible describes a God capable of those feelings and still holds up to extreme scrutiny. I studied it further and have sense seen God work in my life. I have seen someone crippled, who was prayed for, then stood up. I have also seen people prayed for and not healed. I don't completely understand why - but I also understand that I am not God nor am I as smart as God.

I know this isn't reason or an intellectual answer - but you asked about my journey and so I shared a small part of it. I don't think I will change our minds - I simply hope to add something to the discussion so that iron my sharpen iron and that we all may grow stronger in our beliefs whatever they may be.

It depends on your definition of understanding. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. There are currently more people in the world who believe in God than don't. In fact, in all of human history more people believe (and many willing to die for those beliefs) than who don't by astonishing numbers (billions more have believed than have not). Including some leaders in science, philosophy, and physiology. So while there are many people who have a contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs than mine - Christians have billions of others who believe (have the same understanding) of the same foundational principals, such as the trinity. So I could argue that we (the combined thought of humanity) have far more understanding about God than we do about evolution or other physical scientific things. Then again we get to the same point - the trinity is a theological and spiritual thing - you are talking about a physical understanding. So while your mutually exclusive reason may preclude the existence of God - I could point to billions of others who have enough understanding to believe in that bare-minimum and more.

Are you sure about that 'billions of others who believe (have the same understanding)' thing? If that were the case, wouldn't you and the other billion or so people be able to give a coherent explanation of the nature of the trinity? What percentage of those billion or so people do you think simply accept the truth-value of 'trinity' concept without understanding it?

And truth be told, I'm not talking about physical understanding. I'm talking about understanding, period. Similarly to being able to understand the concept of a geometric series for example, or what a number is, I make no prejudicial requirements that all things worthy of understanding have a concrete, tangible embodiment.

Quote

In other words your definition of understand is mutually exclusive to you and mine to me. What makes yours more valid than mine? What therefore is the common ground to which we all have in understanding?

For things that are not imaginary the common ground is objective reality. If there is such a concept of 'spirituality', and if that concept is real, then it is an aspect of objective reality, in the same way that 'physical' things are an aspect of objective reality. I do not see the value in categorizing different aspects of reality as 'spiritual' or 'physical'.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated. For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man. Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man. If man could change evolution - then evolution would not exist in its current state.

It sounds to me like you either do not understand evolution or you are trying to make a bad analogy work despite it failing to convey the point you want. Either way, you should probably let this one go.

Yet, you ask Christians to call on God and for God to give you a demonstration. God is greater than humanity, if humanity could make God do something - then humanity would be equal to God and God would not be God.

I am a mechanical engineer. I can make steel do things. I can utilize physical laws (like those that govern evolution) to produce things I want. I have a degree of control over nature in that regard. That does not make me equal to it or greater than it. I am categorically different than steel or natural laws. To say they and I are equal or greater is...silly. Your equivalencies are superficially deep. When you look more closely at them, they are meaningless, at best.

Evolution is widely believed in all scientific circles - even though we will understand more about it tomorrow than we do today. In fact because we cannot travel back see the beginning of evolution we will never fully understand evolution - yet most of the world believes in it without question. That is simply what I mean about God. We understand God with our finite brains and therefore cannot fully understand the infinite God. That does not mean we cannot believe in God - just simply we must understand that our understanding of God and who God actually is are on 2 different planes. In other words if you actually could know everything about God then would God really be God? I didn't mean we cannot understand God (I was actually using someone else's language), i was saying we can't fully understand God and therefore must not expect a full explanation about God.

It's not the same thing at all. We can observe clear evidence that shows that evolution occurs and has occurred, and we can demonstrate that this evidence can't reasonably be taken to mean that something besides evolution occurred. That's why evolution is commonly accepted as true, because the evidence supports it.

So, where is the evidence that shows that your god exists and has existed? Where is your demonstration that shows that this evidence points to your god and not to some other explanation?

To put it another way, if your god exists, there will be physical evidence to show that fact. You can use that evidence to demonstrate the existence of your god to others. Yet, time and time again, Christians like yourself either use ambiguous 'evidence' that could mean anything, ambiguous analogies that only have metaphorical meaning, or ambiguous testimonials which are seldom reliable. If people used that kind of evidence in support of evolution, people would be right to reject it. But evolution isn't supported by that sort of weak evidence, it's supported by things that actually exist and thus can be demonstrated to others.

My point is that you can't really compare evolution and your god, because evolution can be demonstrated and verified by others. So far, nobody's managed to demonstrate your god in ways which can be verified by anyone else. If there is a demonstration, it's either subjective (and thus fundamentally unverifiable), or it's very very scanty on actual evidence which could be used to verify it (such as faith healing).

And what's in the Bible can be tested against what we know of reality, to see if it's true.

As it turns out, the parts we can test about what "God" has done, aren't true. The book of Genesis is the prime example of this.

To keep with your analogy, the Bible is like a faked scientific experiment that has since been falsified.

If you think Genesis is supposed to scientific then you are mistaken. It is not science every major theologian agrees on that. It is a narrative about Gods creating the universe and humanity, about humanities free-will and its desire to not follow God. This is however not about the trinity so I will stop. In fact many new studies have shown great correlation between what we know about evolution and Genesis especially if it is taken from a functional-ontological (creation as given function - such as seasons, plant growth, etc...) point of view, which is widely held in the intellectual Christian community.

The Bible is accurate in archeology, in historical people and place. It also has great textual-criticism (another topic). It called the Earth round and said is was suspended in nothing 2000 years before others believed it (we thought the Earth was flat on the back of a guy named Atlas). It talked about separating people who are sick (a thing which took us thousands of years to come to understand and because of it thousands of people died of diseases). It talks about blood being the life-giver to the body, even though until the last 300 years we thought blood was bad. I could go on, but this is no longer in the realm of this topic.

In other words your definition of understand is mutually exclusive to you and mine to me. What makes yours more valid than mine? What therefore is the common ground to which we all have in understanding?

Is it really the case that we each have our own unique way of understanding the universe, and that these are exclusive? If that is the case, then no two people would ever agree on the nature of the universe and the world we live in.

However, I think there is a grain of truth in that concept. People who believe in god have not been able to settle the issue of which god is the correct one to believe in. Some people feel that as long as you live a "good life" it doesn't matter, while others think that it is critically important to worship the right one, and still others are adamant that it isn't enough to identify the correct deity-- you must worship him in a very specific and exact way, or your eternal soul may be at risk of horrible punishment. While there may be more people throughout history who have believed in "god" than have not, all of our efforts to identify him clearly and in a manner that would allow humanity to properly thank him for all he has done for us have come to naught.

On the other hand, as we have developed the scientific method and researched the various branches of science, we are coming together in our understanding of how the world and the universe work. In doing so, we have unraveled a lot of the myths and misunderstandings that men used to ascribe to gods and demons and provided natural explanations that can be tested and verified and refined with more knowledge and data. And so, while there may be a difference in understanding between believers and non-believers, I don't think it's fair to pretend that they're equally valid. One form of understanding remains fragmented after thousands and thousands of years of searching and learning, the other not only unifies people, but provides testable theories that allow us to progress and do amazing things (technology, medicine, etc).

No one needs to try and convince you that he saw this incredible miracle where he was able to view a baseball game on a large flat pane of glass hung on the wall; just this silly description should be enough for you to think "oh, he was watching the game on a flat-panel television." The technology is so ubiquitous that we consider it mundane now, but no matter how amazing, it can be demonstrated and the particulars can be used to build more of them, and they work as expected! But when it comes to supernatural miracles, we are left with a version of "take my word for it" because no one seems able to demonstrate them in a manner that is repeatable or even recordable. That is a significant difference, to me.

Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man.

Wesley, you're actually wrong about this -- We have quite a considerable amount of control over evolution. Scientists (including My own brother, who works in immunology and cancer research) can actually influence the development of divergent populations by placing organisms in different chemical environments.

You see, genetic structures are not as black-and-white as all that. They are not cookie cutters that produce identical output 100% of the time. Depending on the presence or absence of certain proteins in their proximity, genetic alleles can switch on or off as their chemical bonds are "masked" in whole or in part by overlapping chains of organic molecules, making a heritable trait more or less available for replication. If a trait is masked out, say by adding more of a certain amino acid to the mix, it will not be passed down to the offspring.

Quote

So when you ask a question about God (the trinity) it is relating the human spirit or soul (because God is a relational being) and therefore cannot be answered by physical evidence.

If it cannot be answered by physical evidence, and can only be addressed via a thought experiment, why should we think that your god is any more than a thought experiment? No physical traces and no confirmed influence on the physical universe -> Subjective and possibly imaginary until otherwise demonstrated.

It seems you think I was born in a the western world and raised Christian. These are presuppositions on your part and you may be interested in my heritage as it is not what you think it is (nor is this the place for that discussion).

Wrong again. I was asking you a question. Nearly every major culture across the globe are riddled with superstitious dogma. Cultures all over the world raise their kids to believe in at least some form of superstitious ideology (Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, the ancient pagan cults, etc). What makes you think you are exempt from this?

You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated. For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man. Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man. If man could change evolution - then evolution would not exist in its current state. Yet, you ask Christians to call on God and for God to give you a demonstration. God is greater than humanity, if humanity could make God do something - then humanity would be equal to God and God would not be God. Therefore we can only use past demonstrations of God as perceived by human experience. Those things passed orally and through writing have come to be known as the Bible.

You are absolutely 100% wrong. And what this part of your response displays is that you do not understand the science of evolution (monkey into a man...really?). We CAN, in fact, demonstrate evolution right now. Have you ever heard of artificial selection, speciation, selective pressure, or genetic fusion? Evolution can be, and has been, demonstrated in a lab on numerous occasions. Go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

But all of these attempts to compare your alleged God to what can be demonstrated in science doesn't help your case. Why? Because this Yahweh thing you believe in is nowhere near demonstrable (in any way shape or form). And since you haven't even attempted to define what you're talking about when you use this term "God", there is really no reason whatever to think that you are making any sense at all. Anyone could makeup any word for any mythical creature they believe in, and then claim that it is similar to proving (for example) gravity. But the problem is that each time we show how this analogy fails, you move the goal post. Nature is not "God". So just pointing to unlikely or unexplained events doesn't, in any way, point to your God. It actually points to a human being who is willing to be gullible in order to protect a pre-commitment he has regarding his beliefs.

I do believe the Bible is real and use I can see that my arguments all stem out of my believe of that Bible. We could argue for years about the authority of the Bible, the archeological, historical, and yes even scientific evidence the Bible shows - but that would be vein as many can't get over the miraculous (or spiritual) aspects of the Bible. Yet, this thread asked a question about the Bible and is in a section called Biblical Contradictions - yet I am not supposed to use the Bible - can you see the falicy in that?

I asked you a separate question which did not pertain to the trinity. In fact, my question was more fundamental. I'm asking you to put aside the bible and demonstrate this alleged God you say you think exists, and whom you think you have a "relationship" with. If you can't demonstrate it (which I'm pretty sure you admitted to earlier), then why are believing this thing? In other words, why did you believe in the first place? What made you believe this bible was "divine"?

To define spiritual the dictionary says: Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. So when you ask a question about God (the trinity) it is relating the human spirit or soul (because God is a relational being) and therefore cannot be answered by physical evidence.

The definition you provided here is also incoherent (and circular). Attempting to define a spirit as "a spirit" is a logical tautology. It tells us nothing about anything. I'm asking a different question. What is a spirit/soul? What is it's nature/essence? I am looking for primary characteristics (not secondary things like "what it does" or "Here's what it is not") because, thus far, I've never seen any definition that makes any sense at all. It's like trying to give a definition for "Blark Schmarbelfarben" as the most contradictory Schmark-Blark that can still exist.

In other words, not all words actually refer to anything in reality (such as Santa, unicorn, etc). What reason/evidence do you have for thinking that the term "spirit" refers to anything real? HINT: An argument from ignorance will not be sufficient.

Wesley, you're actually wrong about this -- We have quite a considerable amount of control over evolution. Scientists (including My own brother, who works in immunology and cancer research) can actually influence the development of divergent populations by placing organisms in different chemical environments.

You see, genetic structures are not as black-and-white as all that. They are not cookie cutters that produce identical output 100% of the time. Depending on the presence or absence of certain proteins in their proximity, genetic alleles can switch on or off as their chemical bonds are "masked" in whole or in part by overlapping chains of organic molecules, making a heritable trait more or less available for replication. If a trait is masked out, say by adding more of a certain amino acid to the mix, it will not be passed down to the offspring.

Other cogent examples of human-influenced evolution would be bananas, animal breeding programs, and nylon-eating bacteria.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

You are right and I was wrong in deeming everyone atheist when you are in fact agnostic. If you in-fact believe that there might be a God then we can talk about spiritual things. Again, I am new - so sorry for this mix up.

Actually, there is a very common confusion here. Atheism and Agnosticism coexist. They are NOT exclusive. Theism/Atheism go to what one claims to believe - while Gnosticism/Agnosticism go to what one claims to know. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. That is all. It is nothing more. If someone says, "I know there is no God" then they are a Gnostic Atheist. So there are four possible categories:

Well first and foremost I base my beliefs on a lot of arguments (not just scanty ones) and those would talk months and pages to fill up. I was only focusing on the trinity as that was the question.

I came to my belief in Christianity not because I was raised it, or because I was told to. Because Christianity is everywhere in the worlds of course people believed in Christ around me - it would impossible to go somewhere this is not so. I came to my believes by studying the Bible and other writings for years. I have a degree in philosophy and a graduate degree in theology. I have traveled to many countries in the world and have studied many different religions. I came to my belief because I came t the conclusion there that had to be a creative force behind the universe. I looked through ht possible options and found that the Bible describes a God capable of those feelings and still holds up to extreme scrutiny. I studied it further and have sense seen God work in my life. I have seen someone crippled, who was prayed for, then stood up. I have also seen people prayed for and not healed. I don't completely understand why - but I also understand that I am not God nor am I as smart as God.

But Wes (I hope it's OK if I call you Wes), this does not answer my question. Were you raised in a Christian home? What did the people who raised you, teach you in this regard? See, you said something very telling just a second ago. You said, "I came t the conclusion there that had to be a creative force behind the universe." But how exactly did you get from this conclusion to "the bible is the word of God"? Was there one particular argument that was the King-Pin? If so, what was it?

I am certainly interested to hear an allegedly "A Game" argument that made you a theist but (as you might guess) it is quite hard to imagine that you came to believe in a deity solely due to an argument (or group thereof). It is far more likely that you were preconditioned to believe and that you were in a prepared psychological state of acceptance. However, I won't make a judgment on that until I hear from you.

If genesis says things about the world - for example, there was a worldwide flood - then those statements can be subject to the scientific method to determine their truth value. Genesis says many things about the world, and thus, can be subjected to scrutiny.

Men were never monkeys and monkeys were never men, no sensible person has ever claimed that. The most notable person to claim it was a bishop who was obviously steeped in biblical thought -> the religious, eh? What can we do with them? How can we help them understand the wonder of the world?

I think your preconceptions need adjusting to fit in with 21st century knowledge.

Quote

Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man.

I assume that you have heard of genetic engineering? That is human involvement in evolution.

I always say that god is our ignorance. What we do not know, we attribute to gods - at least, some of us do.

This must be my last reply today as I am getting on a plane in a few minutes. Sorry I cannot respond to everyone. Let me simply share a few things, then you guys can bash them while I am on a plane.

1. You are right you can demonstrate micro-evolution and it was a bad analogy - sorry (however it might still work with macro-evolution - but I will concede this for the sake of argument). I was simply trying to show how it is impossible for us to demonstrate God because we are created by God and have no power to make God do things.

2. As for spiritual things it seems that the thought of this group is that all things deemed spiritual are silly and therefore not allowed in an argument. I understand but also ask you to think about what you can actually objectively observe. You see a bird. But what makes you know the bird is real, you see it. But how can you trust your eyes, because you have seen other things. How do you know those other things were real...etc... In this you see that philosophically everything at some point has to be accepted on a personal understanding of reason. (Many argue that many people see the bird - so it is real - but how do you know that many people are real). You think the bird is there is true because you believe your sense of sight, or maybe touch and sound. You believe that evolution is real (and by the way I have never said it is not) because you believe in the scientific process's that have shown evolution. I believe that God is real because my personal understanding of reason allows me to separate physical and spiritual.

3. As for the Trinity (the original post) from the earliest of church fathers humans have struggled on how the trinity works. It is part church dogma, it is completely doctrine, and is has its foundations in the Bible. But never the less, if you don't think God is real, then why do you care about the Trinity. I would rather you decide if there is a God. If there is not - then it doesn't matter. If there is, then the arguments of spirit, the Bible and others will take on new light. But as for Christians we understand the trinity as this: God is one, we as humans perceive God through our experiences which have shown the collect Christian body that God is Father, God is Jesus, and God is spirit. These are ways in which we understand God - they are not different Gods.

4. As to what helped to become a theist. It was a long process (about 10 years of various studies) and there was no one thing that led me to believe that there was a God. It was studying the complexities in science and seeing how in-probable it was that it was all random. This lead me to a creator entity. That lead me to study who this entity was and there was no answer untell I studied textual-criticism of the Bible and other things which lead me believe the disciples saw a risen King and because of that they were willing to die to stand up for what they believe in.

I guess at some level I have to take it on faith. But so do you. You believe in the Big Bang theory, but if you follow it all the way down you get to - where did the particles come from, magnetic fields, where did magnetic fields come from, laws of physics, where did the laws of physics come from - and you have to faith you will someday find an answer.

As more people are posting before I can even type responses I will hold off on talking about Genesis, Archeology, and other things until they are in topics and posts that we can focus on just those things. Sorry I have to run.

But what makes you know the bird is real, you see it. But how can you trust your eyes, because you have seen other things. How do you know those other things were real...etc...

dude, this losing argument leads to Last Tuesdayism - the belief that the entire universe was created last Tuesday, including us, with memories of our lives pre-installed. It is a solipsist argument and not worth discussing.

jesus christ. Could you possibly drag out any more of these classic cliches? No, we do not have faith in the big bang like you have faith in god. The big bang is demonstrably true. But if for some reason science finds a better explanation, I am willing to accept that answer instead.